Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-egit - Eclipse Git plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=269421 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-10 09:52 EST ------- See my comments below. The only thing is that I think we should either: a) strip the tests from the SRPM to avoid worrying about the LGPL issue or b) add LGPL to the License line in the specfile and/or consult with legal to see if it should or should not be there. Otherwise, things are good to go. Thanks for doing this, Ben. (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > ? license field matches the actual license. > > - it says in the git web repo that some of it is LGPL ... but I can't see > > what parts - can you? I'm okay with the dual GPLv2 and EPL as that's what > > I can see. > > The tests are LGPL but we're not shipping them. Should I add LGPL to the License > line because it's included in the src.rpm? I really have no idea. Let's strip them from the SRPM so we don't have to worry about it. > > ? verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > > - I can't get the same md5sum but the contents are the same. Did you use wget? > > No, wget doesn't work with the git web repo. I manually clicked on the link to > get the file. Hmm. I used wget and just renamed the file. There are no content differences, though, so I'm okay with it. > > NEEDS_FIX we should probably fill in some of feature.xml such as the licence > section > > I added the information that I could. This patch really needs to be upstream so > that this information can be filled in properly. Okay, that sounds fine. > > ? should there be any user-visible eclipse features other than Team->Share? > > No checkout? I know you said they were making a new release soon with a > > whole bunch of new features so should we wait until then? I'm legitimately > > asking, not trying to be snide. > > IMO this plugin needs a lot of work to be functional. I asked one of the > developers about their timeline but haven't received a reply yet. > > > I notice a lot of stuff being spewed to the > > console as well ... do they have a bug tracker upstream? > > No, not that I know of. > > > I guess what I'm > > trying to say is that we shouldn't have it be installed by default in the > > Eclipse group of comps.xml just yet. What do you think? > > That seems reasonable. Okay, I'm glad that it's going to be available so we can get it some exposure. > > ? should we split the package into two: the java git implementation and the > > eclipse plugin? I guess we can do that in the future if anything else > > starts using the java git implementation > > Yeah, I think it should be kept together until something needs it. Agreed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review